danieLion wrote:I can't speak for Ñāṇa, but the idea that "devotional practices are justified in terms of their efficacy" is not not the implication I drew from this.

What implications did you draw?

The disconnect between faith and knowledge is not necessary, and in some cases essential.

danieLion wrote:the dichotomy between faith and knowledge is false

Lampang wrote:Why? As far as I can see, reference to faith which involves knowledge doesn't make sense.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote:Thus, for every listener, faith in the Buddha's Awakening was a prerequisite for advanced growth in the teaching. Without faith in the fact of the Buddha's knowledge of Unbinding, one could not fully accept his prescription. Without faith in the regularity of the Dhamma — including conviction in the principle of kamma and the impersonality of the causal law, making the path open in principle to everyone — one could not fully have faith in one's own ability to follow the path. Of course, this faith would then be confirmed, step by step, as one followed the teaching and began gaining results, but full confirmation would come only with an experience of Awakening. Prior to that point, one's trust, bolstered only by partial results, would have to be a matter of faith [MN 27].

Acquiring this faith is called "going for refuge" in the Buddha. The "refuge" here derives from the fact that one has placed trust in the truth of the Buddha's Awakening and expects that by following his teachings — in particular, the principle of skillful kamma — one protects oneself from creating further suffering for oneself or others, eventually reaching true, unconditioned happiness. This act of going for refuge is what qualifies one as a Buddhist — as opposed to someone simply interested in the Buddha's teachings — and puts one in a position to benefit fully from what the Buddha taught.

The Buddha employed various means of instilling faith in his listeners, but the primary means fall into three classes: his character, his psychic powers, and his powers of reason. When he gave his first sermon — to the Five Brethren, his former compatriots — he had to preface his remarks by reminding them of his honest and responsible character before they would willingly listen to him. When he taught the Kassapa brothers, he first had to subdue their pride with a dazzling array of psychic feats. In most cases, however, he needed only to reason with his listeners and interlocutors, although here again he had to be sensitive to the level of their minds so that he could lead them step by step, taking them from what they saw as immediately apparent and directing them to ever higher and more subtle points. The typical pattern was for the Buddha to begin with the immediate joys of generosity and virtue, followed by the longer-term sensual rewards of these qualities, in line with the principle of kamma; then the ultimate drawbacks of those sensual rewards; and finally the benefits of renunciation. If his listeners could follow his reasoning this far, they would be ready for the more advanced teachings.

We often view reason as something distinct from faith, but for the Buddha it was simply one way of instilling faith or conviction in his listeners. At several points in the Pali Canon [e.g., DN 1; MN 95] he points out the fallacies that can result when one draws reasoned conclusions from a limited range of experience, from false analogies, or from inappropriate modes of analysis. Because his teachings could not be proven prior to an experience of Awakening, he recognized that the proper use of reason was not in trying to prove his teachings, but simply in showing that they made sense. People can make sense of things when they see them as similar to something they already know and understand.

Thus the main function of reason in presenting the teachings is in finding proper analogies for understanding them: hence the many metaphors and similes used throughout the texts. Faith based on reason and understanding, the Buddha taught, was more solid than unreasoned faith, but neither could substitute for the direct knowledge of the regularity of the Dhamma and of Unbinding, for only the experience of Unbinding was a guarantee of true knowledge. Nevertheless, faith was a prerequisite for attaining that direct knowledge. Only when the initial presentation of the teaching had aroused faith in the listener, would he/she be in a position to benefit from a less-adorned presentation of the content and put it into practice (my emphases).Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... html#intro

danieLion wrote:Both these quotes smack of ethnocentrism

Lampang wrote:Again, perhaps you could explain what you're getting at.

Mod note: Gentlemen, Please be polite or your msgs will cease to be, as per the TOS which you agreed to by posting here. Also, no posting stuff in a language (in this case Thai) not readily understood by most here without an accurate translation.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

danieLion wrote:Re: The MEDITATION comments. While knowing Peacock thinks "meditation" is the worst translation of the practices the Buddha taught has some validity, you'll find him (and Batchelor) using the term all the time--not to mention, they both meditate frequently.

metta

Hi Danial, do you care to explain this validity?

If you are thinking of the term Bhavana, do note that is not the term I bring up, or the term that should be translated as meditation (my mentioning was in responce to the claim that there is "no word for meditation", which is false)

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

danieLion wrote:Re: The MEDITATION comments. While knowing Peacock thinks "meditation" is the worst translation of the practices the Buddha taught has some validity, you'll find him (and Batchelor) using the term all the time--not to mention, they both meditate frequently.

metta

Hi Danial, do you care to explain this validity?

If you are thinking of the term Bhavana, do note that is not the term I bring up, or the term that should be translated as meditation (my mentioning was in responce to the claim that there is "no word for meditation", which is false)

Hi Cittasanto,

Did I claim there's "no word for meditation"? If I did, that was dumb of me because my Pali skills and knowledge of the Pali tradition are minimal. Peacock's averse to it because he thinks it alludes to Christian traditions. It seems like a personal problem of his to me (he hates the use of the word "enlightenment" too, saying, "That was a political movement is Europe.")

When I first encountered Batchelor and Peacock was a little starry eyed, I'll admit. BUT, my main beef with them and their like right now is how irrelevant they are. They seem to be operating under the assumption that deconstruction is the latest, cutting edge, academic tool. But by the time they got around to applying it critically to the Pali tradition, it was already yesterdays news. Why? For better or worse we live in an increasingly global culture and deconstructing anything is just a few keyboard taps away. In this context, presentations like this appear archaic to me. Yet they act like their findings our it's the latest discovery.

When Buddhists talk to each other about meditation, I don't think is much of an issue. However, when I tell people who don't know words like bhavana, jhana, samatha, vipassana, anapansati, satipatthana, etc..., and I tell them I meditate, they usually don't know what the hell I'm talking about. For years I'd say to my wife (she's not a Buddhist), "I'm going to go meditate" before I found out she assumed mediation just means "emptying your mind."

Now, I try and get more specific, e.g., I'm going to do mindfulness of in and out breathing, or Qigong, or walking meditation. I say this because my wife's former understanding is typical. In western/modern culture, meditating is often synonymous with wasting your time, yet I've found with people like my wife, that even a little technical explanation helps them understand that when we meditate per the Buddha's instructions there's a whole lot of actual work involved.metta

"He grows disenchanted with the intellect, disenchanted with ideas, disenchanted with consciousness at the intellect, disenchanted with contact at the intellect. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: He grows disenchanted with that too. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released.

Ñāṇa wrote:Batchelor and Peacock's aversion towards the word "religion" is also kinda funny.

Don't know whether they have aversion and I am not interested in listening to their talk but religious thought seems to be strongly intermingled with "clinging to ideas/imaginations" which is why some seem to prefer the anti-religious aspects of buddhism ("anti" must not be confused with aversion). The religious aspects appear to provide a home for consciousness while the anti-religious aspects point to homelessness. One man's cake is another man's poison.

ground wrote:...religious thought seems to be strongly intermingled with "clinging to ideas/imaginations" which is why some seem to prefer the anti-religious aspects of buddhism ("anti" must not be confused with aversion). The religious aspects appear to provide a home for consciousness while the anti-religious aspects point to homelessness.

This seems to me to be an inaccurate oversimplification. This morning I was reading a chapter in Ajahn Munindo's Unexpected Freedom which accords with what I've observed around Asian teachers and monastics:

Our Asian teachers may not have explicitly taught the necessity of cultivating an attitude of devotion, but they certainly demonstrated it themselves. There are a number of instances I can remember when I saw certain gestures that really cut right through any doubts or confusion I may have had about the overall attitude I should be keeping in my day-to-day practice.

When I was a new monk and visiting Wat Pah Bahn Tard, which is the monastery of Ajahn Mahaboowa –- renowned as one of the most ferocious and mighty masters of the present Theravada Buddhist Forest tradition –- I was waiting in the eating hall in the early morning, before we all went out on alms round together, when the Venerable Ajahn came in. I expected that he would probably start snapping orders to the monks, and then rush off on pindapat -– he had a reputation for being very gruff and very fast. But what did he do? As he quietly entered the hall, the first thing he did was humbly kneel before the shrine and bow with the most gracious prostrations that one would ever wish to see. I wondered, “Why is he doing that? He’s supposed to be enlightened. I mean what is he doing bowing to graven images?”

This uninhibited expression of his devotion was a natural part of his disposition. He had grown up with that sensibility, as Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Tate and other eminent monks had. The same is true in Burma. At the monasteries of the various well-known and Venerable Sayadaws, you will see numerous well-kept shrines with monks, nuns and laity alike offering respect by way of candles, flowers and incense. Before and after sitting meditation they always mindfully bow three times in devotion to the Buddha, their teacher to whom they know they owe so much. This is so normal, so close to them that they just take it for granted. Addhithan, making determinations, generating these conscious wishes from a deep place within is thoroughly natural, and this, I feel, is one of the essential nourishments of the contemplative life.

Last edited by Nyana on Sat Jun 16, 2012 2:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well I guess to overcome exactly this personal aspects is the step into Dhamma. Not every bodies step is a step of saddha. People prefer to believe to what fits to their ideas (the ideas where they feel secure and can go on as usual). "When something is against the my ways, it can not be from benefit"

Just that! *smile*...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html

BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_

danieLion wrote:When I first encountered Batchelor and Peacock was a little starry eyed, I'll admit. BUT, my main beef with them and their like right now is how irrelevant they are. They seem to be operating under the assumption that deconstruction is the latest, cutting edge, academic tool.

Just as extistential and phenomenological philosophy was was the cutting edge a century or so ago?

ground wrote:The religious aspects appear to provide a home for consciousness while the anti-religious aspects point to homelessness.

There is of course something true in it, but I guess your idea is something different, as you (as far as I had seen) believe is homelessness, while sitting in a "secure" living room. Yes, many seek for a additional home in religion, in a group in a kind of identification, which at least would not match the point in it fullest dimension. But that is a step on the way. Very view will be a master without getting through a process. Although the modern people believe in such ways. We can observer that in even in any hand craft tradition. There is only junk left. Half knowledge, quarter knowledge and skill, skill of imitation. This skill of imitation has become to a normality, to a way it is "wise". People do not care if they are sustain on dependent things if it feels good for them.

Virtue, concentration, and discernment: These three things the Buddha called a path. The path isn't the religion, and it's not what the Buddha really wanted, but they're the way we get there.

It's the same as your coming from Bangkok to Wat Nong Pah Pong. You didn't want the road coming here. You wanted to reach the monastery instead. But the road was needed for you to get here. The road coming here isn't the monastery. It's just the road to the monastery. You have to follow the road to get to the monastery.

Virtue, concentration, and discernment are the road to peace, which is what we really want.

And the with the Wat or with religion, it's the same. But it is impossible to find to come to the other shore on another path like the eightfold path and this path starts with right view and right livelihood is also a important section which's possibility is provided by the tradition. Some may have the rare karmic conditions to maintain it outside, but that is not something we can adopt as a general way, or a way adoptable by many.

Just that! *smile*...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html

BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_

ground wrote:...religious thought seems to be strongly intermingled with "clinging to ideas/imaginations" which is why some seem to prefer the anti-religious aspects of buddhism ("anti" must not be confused with aversion). The religious aspects appear to provide a home for consciousness while the anti-religious aspects point to homelessness.

This seems to me to be an inaccurate oversimplification. This morning I was reading a chapter in Ajahn Munindo's Unexpected Freedom which accords with what I've observed around Asian teachers and monastics:

Our Asian teachers may not have explicitly taught the necessity of cultivating an attitude of devotion, but they certainly demonstrated it themselves. There are a number of instances I can remember when I saw certain gestures that really cut right through any doubts or confusion I may have had about the overall attitude I should be keeping in my day-to-day practice.

When I was a new monk and visiting Wat Pah Bahn Tard, which is the monastery of Ajahn Mahaboowa –- renowned as one of the most ferocious and mighty masters of the present Theravada Buddhist Forest tradition –- I was waiting in the eating hall in the early morning, before we all went out on alms round together, when the Venerable Ajahn came in. I expected that he would probably start snapping orders to the monks, and then rush off on pindapat -– he had a reputation for being very gruff and very fast. But what did he do? As he quietly entered the hall, the first thing he did was humbly kneel before the shrine and bow with the most gracious prostrations that one would ever wish to see. I wondered, “Why is he doing that? He’s supposed to be enlightened. I mean what is he doing bowing to graven images?”

This uninhibited expression of his devotion was a natural part of his disposition. He had grown up with that sensibility, as Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Tate and other eminent monks had. The same is true in Burma. At the monasteries of the various well-known and Venerable Sayadaws, you will see numerous well-kept shrines with monks, nuns and laity alike offering respect by way of candles, flowers and incense. Before and after sitting meditation they always mindfully bow three times in devotion to the Buddha, their teacher to whom they know they owe so much. This is so normal, so close to them that they just take it for granted. Addhithan, making determinations, generating these conscious wishes from a deep place within is thoroughly natural, and this, I feel, is one of the essential nourishments of the contemplative life.

From a psychological perspective devotion to (an imagined person, ghost or deity or god) may appear as an antidot to some sort of self-aggrandisation. No doubt that it may be helpful or even necessary for some.

Yes, that is what I am talking about. You can see it easy on how a person actually lifes and acts. Some build a very nice home, breaking body and mind apart, giving an amount of mind to "that's the way it is" and enclose the other in a bubble of ideas of homelessness.Mostly they cut only pieces out of a content, the whole would destroy their bubble and find no ground for an "homeless" argument.

It's not possible to have no believes as long as you don't know. If you like people believe that you actually know the final homelessness, that what is the different with an other believe? You would only be able to provide a way and the way you act and live would be a reverence to believe that it is possible. Sure many would tend to believe living room ascetics or others who sell sap wood. We wan' it all.

Last edited by Hanzze on Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Just that! *smile*...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html

BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_

ground wrote:From a psychological perspective devotion to (an imagined person, ghost or deity or god) may appear as an antidot to some sort of self-aggrandisation. No doubt that it may be helpful or even necessary for some.

Devotion to the Buddha, dhamma, & saṅgha has nothing to do with devotion to "an imagined person, ghost, or deity, or god."

ground wrote:From a psychological perspective devotion to (an imagined person, ghost or deity or god) may appear as an antidot to some sort of self-aggrandisation. No doubt that it may be helpful or even necessary for some.

Devotion to the Buddha, dhamma, & saṅgha has nothing to do with devotion to "an imagined person, ghost, or deity, or god."

This may be how you want to perceive it. From a pyschological perspective - and this I referred to - it may appear differently.

Hanzze wrote:You can see it easy on how a person actually lifes and acts.

This is belief in perceptions and concomittant mental fabrications. Self-identification with aggregates. Consciousness' home.

Some things are sophisticated lies to one self.

In addition to providing these incentives for honestly admitting misbehavior, the Buddha blocked the paths to denial. Modern sociologists have identified five basic strategies that people use to avoid accepting blame when they've caused harm, and it's noteworthy that the Pali teaching on moral responsibility serves to undercut all five. The strategies are: to deny responsibility, to deny that harm was actually done, to deny the worth of the victim, to attack the accuser, and to claim that they were acting in the service of a higher cause. The Pali responses to these strategies are: (1) We are always responsible for our conscious choices. (2) We should always put ourselves in the other person's place. (3) All beings are worthy of respect. (4) We should regard those who point out our faults as if they were pointing out treasure. (Monks, in fact, are required not to show disrespect to people who criticize them, even if they don't plan to abide by the criticism.) (5) There are no — repeat, no — higher purposes that excuse breaking the basic precepts of ethical behavior.

"And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view...

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view."

— MN 117

Just that! *smile*...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html

BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_

ground wrote:From a psychological perspective devotion to (an imagined person, ghost or deity or god) may appear as an antidot to some sort of self-aggrandisation. No doubt that it may be helpful or even necessary for some.

Devotion to the Buddha, dhamma, & saṅgha has nothing to do with devotion to "an imagined person, ghost, or deity, or god."

This may be how you want to perceive it. From a pyschological perspective - and this I referred to - it may appear differently.

Just for those who did not understand the refuge and have not been able to adopt it, out of this cause. To much perception maybe, to much believe rather than saddha. Of cause that what is mass religion is based on believe and rarely on saddha. But it's a frame where the other can exist and not an enemy.

Just that! *smile*...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html

BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_

Just that! *smile*...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html

BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_